Which was the "junk science" again: the publicly-funded or privately-funded studies?
The New York Times, like the Washington Post, loves to "blow the whistle" on bad actors, be they corrupt politicians, greedy businessmen or hypocritical "public interest" groups. Yesterday's Science column by John Tierney on "'Misleading' Research From Industry ?" revisits a subject of repeated comment in our blogs. We've pointed out that every funding agency has an agenda when it ponies up to support health-related research. The solution: examine the methodology and the integrity of the analysis. Too often, industry-funded studies are dismissed for bias while government-funded studies are given a free pass (despite numerous examples of why they shouldn't).
Tierney briefly reviews the disparagement of industry-funded studies, lamented by the British Medical Journal as creating a "hierarchy of purity among authors," and reports:
Now some researchers have looked to see what kind of hierarchy actually exists. After analyzing weight-loss research conducted over four decades, they've found that the quality of data reporting in industry-sponsored research does seem to be different from that in other research: It's better.
The study, published in the International Journal of Obesity , concluded: "while continued efforts to improve reporting quality are warranted, such efforts should be directed at nonindustry-funded research at least as much as at industry-funded research."
Ironically, the article appeared concurrent to the first meeting of the new 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee whose salt subcommittee chair has enjoyed millions of research dollars leading to reports that endorsed the official government policy of universal sodium reduction while specifically opposing release of the data in those studies for independent expert analysis. So, if the Gray Lady wants another whistle-blowing target there are surely many choices.
